Kinky columns

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:22 am

Another issue that was pointed out at Roll Call was that the rules currently allow a column to kink, but do not require it to do so.

This could be exploited as cheese to swing a long column through a huge distance by wheeling.

Suggested amendment:

P.8 BATTLE GROUP FORMATIONS

“There are four exceptions to this general case:
1. Columns - a battle group that is one base wide is a column of march and must be "kinked"[i/] at points where it has turned (e.g. to follow a road), until the whole column has passed that point.”

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:28 am

This confirms common practice. I can see no problem with this.

bddbrown · Post by **bddbrown** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:56 am

Talking on kinked columns, is there similar cheese in kinking a column at an acute angle and then turning 90 degrees? I think the rules as written would allow quite a long of movement of the rear of the column in this case as well as the new facing is based on the angle of the front of the column?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:08 am

bddbrown wrote:Talking on kinked columns, is there similar cheese in kinking a column at an acute angle and then turning 90 degrees? I think the rules as written would allow quite a long of movement of the rear of the column in this case as well as the new facing is based on the angle of the front of the column?

Well yes, but it would at least require a CMT.

Terry suggested not allowing kinked columns to turn 90 degrees at all, but that seems a bit harsh as their forward progress might be blocked so they could not get past the kink point.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:12 am

Terry suggested not allowing kinked columns to turn 90 degrees at all, but that seems a bit harsh as their forward progress might be blocked so they could not get past the kink point.

You could still expand to get rid of the kink....Which you'd probably want to do anyway if it was enemy blocking your move.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:21 pm

I couldn't see an answer to this elsewhere.

A column kinks where it wheels. Does it refrom in the next manuver phase? ie its tail likes up on the lead base?

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:38 pm

Is a two base BG in two ranks, e.g. Nikephorian Byzantine cataphracts, automatically a march column that must kink when it turns? I think a march column needs a more precise definition than being one base wide.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:45 pm

hazelbark wrote:I couldn't see an answer to this elsewhere.

A column kinks where it wheels. Does it refrom in the next manuver phase? ie its tail likes up on the lead base?

A kinked column is a legal formation, so it can't reform.

Is a two base BG in two ranks, e.g. Nikephorian Byzantine cataphracts, automatically a march column that must kink when it turns? I think a march column needs a more precise definition than being one base wide.

At present it is automatically a march column and must kink. However, it only needs to move one base depth to iron the kink out. Even if it is kinked, this has no impact on its performance, although it might occasionally obstruct the movement of other friendly battlegroups.

n10cd12 · Post by **n10cd12** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:47 am

Why not just say each stand in the in-column-BG can not move farther than its base movement? This would allow stands that are farther back in the line to move out some, but not an extreme amount.

I've been in formations in the military where the front of a colum was moving down a road, and the middle and end would try to jog out and whip the line around to get on the road and inline as quickly as possible. (obviously not a historical reference - just more practicality)

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:36 am

Speaking of kinked columns....

If I have a Kinked column and want to turn 90 degrees.....I guess that I turn based on the front rank? Recently I had a column of medium foot and had turned the Front ranks on a 90 degree wheel to threaten a flank. When my opponent threatened to flank this column I simply poped back into line with a 90 degree turn....Just looked a little odd and maybe suprised my oponnent. No problem with this?

Column of medium foot turned to the right
ccc
c
c
c
c
c

Makes a 90 degree turn to

cccccccc

Assuming the new frontage met the rull requirements.

Ian

fatismo · Post by **fatismo** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:46 am

So a BG of 4 battle wagons in column is 40mm wide and 320mm long facing the enemy.

If they pass their CMT to wheel and don't kink and wheel 90 degrees their back end swings round 450mm effectively putting the battle wagons parallel to the enemy ready to shoot along their long edge. Now thats cheeseeeee.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:47 am

fatismo wrote:So a BG of 4 battle wagons in column is 40mm wide and 320mm long facing the enemy.

If they pass their CMT to wheel and don't kink and wheel 90 degrees their back end swings round 450mm effectively putting the battle wagons parallel to the enemy ready to shoot along their long edge. Now thats cheeseeeee.

The original post dates from 2007 and was a beta test post. The published rules require them to kink.

1. Columns - a battle group that is one base wide is a column of march and must be “kinked” at points where it has wheeled (e.g. to follow a road) until the whole column has passed that point.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:10 pm

Something of this sort came up in one of my games this past weekend. If a column (say, of Lh) kinks between base 1 and base 2 can base 2 still shoot just as if it were lined up in edge and corner contact behind base 1?

Marc

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:13 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
Is a two base BG in two ranks, e.g. Nikephorian Byzantine cataphracts, automatically a march column that must kink when it turns? I think a march column needs a more precise definition than being one base wide.
At present it is automatically a march column and must kink. However, it only needs to move one base depth to iron the kink out. Even if it is kinked, this has no impact on its performance, although it might occasionally obstruct the movement of other friendly battlegroups.

What if the two base BG is part of a battleline? Or does this mean that two base BGs in column cannot--as a practical matter--be part of a battleline? Perhaps I am being obtuse this morning.

Marc

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:20 pm

babyshark wrote:
lawrenceg wrote:
hazelbark wrote: At present it is automatically a march column and must kink. However, it only needs to move one base depth to iron the kink out. Even if it is kinked, this has no impact on its performance, although it might occasionally obstruct the movement of other friendly battlegroups.
What if the two base BG is part of a battleline? Or does this mean that two base BGs in column cannot--as a practical matter--be part of a battleline? Perhaps I am being obtuse this morning.

Marc

I think it is generally accepted that a battleline, even if it contains BGs in column, moves as a rigid block, unless the whole battleline is itself in a single coumn.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:22 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
babyshark wrote: What if the two base BG is part of a battleline? Or does this mean that two base BGs in column cannot--as a practical matter--be part of a battleline? Perhaps I am being obtuse this morning.

Marc
I think it is generally accepted that a battleline, even if it contains BGs in column, moves as a rigid block, unless the whole battleline is itself in a single coumn.

Generally accepted, or properly within the rules?

Marc

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:40 pm

n10cd12 wrote:Why not just say each stand in the in-column-BG can not move farther than its base movement? This would allow stands that are farther back in the line to move out some, but not an extreme amount.

slows the game down too much forvery little benefit IMHO.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:45 pm

babyshark wrote:
lawrenceg wrote:
babyshark wrote: What if the two base BG is part of a battleline? Or does this mean that two base BGs in column cannot--as a practical matter--be part of a battleline? Perhaps I am being obtuse this morning.

Marc
I think it is generally accepted that a battleline, even if it contains BGs in column, moves as a rigid block, unless the whole battleline is itself in a single coumn.
Generally accepted, or properly within the rules?

Marc

There is nothing in the rules on battlelines that requires a kinked part of the battleline to "unkink".

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:22 pm

So forget having a battle line of Nikephorian Byzantine cataphracts flanked by cavalry since it can't wheel apparently.

I want my maneuverable double based Kn(I) back from DBM!

The rules clearly need to qualify that a 2 base BG in two ranks is not a march column. This sounds absurd if the interpretation is that when it gets to the point that a two base BG can't wheel in a battle line.

At a minimum, a march column should need to be three ranks deep or maybe have some minimum number of physical MU of depth (to handle models with especially deep bases) to count as a march column.

Chris

nikgaukroger wrote:
babyshark wrote:
lawrenceg wrote: I think it is generally accepted that a battleline, even if it contains BGs in column, moves as a rigid block, unless the whole battleline is itself in a single coumn.
Generally accepted, or properly within the rules?

Marc

There is nothing in the rules on battlelines that requires a kinked part of the battleline to "unkink".

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:31 pm

batesmotel wrote:So forget having a battle line of Nikephorian Byzantine cataphracts flanked by cavalry since it can't wheel apparently.

How on earth did you conclude this?